Ever since I started using computers, I've been baffled by the relative clumsiness of installing applications. Whether we are talking the really old days (launching the Rambo game off a tape), the '90s (running Keen or using installers in Windows 95), or the modern days (still those installers, but now also package management and self-contained applications); it's all relatively cumbersome, and they all have their downsides. I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and come up with my idealistic, utopian method of installing, running, updating, and uninstalling applications.

No, it's an elaboration on MacOS X. The system bundle is presumed to provide a generous set of shared libraries and prolonged ABI stability -- no small feat.

As with MacOS, any library excluded from the stable system bundle must be statically linked into all dependent program bundles, each of which may contain a different outdated version of the library.

The main differences from MacOS are the semantic filesystem and the bundle repository, along with the minor hierarchy change. It wouldn't be difficult to prototype this system for OS X using Spotlight or perhaps Nepomuk.

I have one question for Thom: I assume the desktop environment would be part of the system bundle so that its libraries could be shared amongst program bundles. So where on the filesystem would the per-user settings for such system components live? For example, does my wallpaper belong in /Settings/butters/System or /System/Settings/butters?